He narrates a video clip by the Clarion Project (below) showing why we ought to give CAIR the boot right out of this country because of their support of terrorism, right under our noses.

The Third Jihad – CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood and Jihad – Published on Mar 7, 2016

The video discusses how Muslim jihadist’s use deception as a part of their war against the western civilization. He cites a secret document, a manifesto of jihad, that was uncovered by the FBI describing their war:

…their work in america is a kind of a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within.

Jasser starts out this video clip by saying;

And Americans are being told that many of the mainstream Muslims are also moderate. One of their primary tactics is deception.

In 1994 CAIR was established by three of the leaders from the IAP (screen shot of Omar Ahmad, Rafiq Jaber and Nihad Awad) and it’s well documented that the IAP was essentially a front group for HAMAS. So perhaps that would explain why CAIR won’t condemn terror groups like Hamas and also why they avoided participating in my Muslims against terror rally in 2004.

Why won’t we wake up to the jihad that lies quietly dormant while the terrorist-supporting organizations still live and work in the United States?

The CAIR-type organizations that have a history of supporting the terrorists still being protected, as if having the right to form nonprofits gives them some special protection against the United States coming after them, makes a special point that the Obama Administration is a terrorist cover-up White House. We must get rid of them. Our country needs to be kept safe.

An anti-Islamophobia event hosts a panel of speakers, one of whom is a prominent college professor at Florida Atlantic University who discusses the “rationality” behind a seventh-century punishment of cutting off a person’s hands for stealing.

Recorded on video, the professor explains the vicious punishment of Sharia law that is supposed to prevent Muslims from stealing.

They begin to weigh and balance judgment from the place of killing people as an acceptable way of punishment. Their judgment seems to start at death, as if every crime is punishable by death, so thief’s ought to be happy that they only get their hands cut off. They get to keep their lives and so it is a better sentence because they get to live for a crime such as stealing.

So in trying to get this straight, the thinking is, that instead of killing people who rob and steal, it is better to cut their hands off. By cutting off their hands, the robbers and thief’s lives are compassionately spared. We are supposed to see this backwards logic as if it were more humane, more humane than actually killing them. As if cutting off body parts in judgment of a person who committed a crime could ever be humane.

Apparently such severe torture is supposed to deter Muslims from stealing, yet how has this form of punishment worked for them? Why is this still their law if it is supposed to create a fearful example to Muslims and make them never want to steal, or get caught stealing? It doesn’t work or they wouldn’t need this law. It would have solved the problem the first time.

It is more a barbaric statement about who they are at the core, to see this as a humane way of punishing someone. The problem is, there is nothing human, or humane, about Sharia law.

The law forces down people’s throats a very brutal, primitive lifestyle, one that has never progressed beyond a seventh century caveman mentality that view people as animals to be slaughtered, and the people are seen as never amounting to any value at all.

My perspective is that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will exist but only by barbarism because they can’t think of a way to survive and risk being found out as being the flunkies of the world that they are among regular people on earth.

I see it as being that these people pushing Sharia law on us don’t know how to live among friendly people and they refuse to civilly cohabitate on the earth with the human race. If they can’t have what others have they must steal what they can and subjugate people, senselessly murder people, trampling their way across other people’s lands to try and take it from them, like rejects at birth. No one wants to play that way. As children who grew up to be cruel to animals, Sharia law adherants will try and take away things that aren’t theirs, bully and scream until they dominate people who will give up fighting them off. Making nice with people like this won’t work; they never learn how to be civil and aren’t interested in becoming so. They want to rob and kill and according to Christian belief, this is what Satan does: he comes to kill, steal and destroy.

“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” – John 10:10 (KJV)

Don’t you think you ought to protect yourself against these people and not make a way clear for these people to enter in our lands to take from us what it is that we hold dear?

Safety for one, is what most people hold dear. We trust that in the United States we will be held accountable for our actions and so that helps dispel the criminal elements in our cities and towns.

But Sharia law cuts the hands off of their people who rob and steal so they can walk around in public without their hands, supposedly as an example of what will happen if you have possibly be found guilty of stealing. That ought to be enough to keep those people in line; after all, without hands they can never do anything bad again. Next time, if they try stealing they may get their arms cut off, or be killed since they had a warning.

What mentality thinks this way?

My feeling is that these are small minded rejects who can only “win” at anything by displaying their barbaric pride, and seeing people die.

” And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” – Genesis 16:12 KJV

It is certainly open to dispute, in my opinion, where the temperament of jihadist’s came from and if they are part of the bible’s scripture.

I wanted to know whether the lineage from Abraham’s sons would have anything to do with jihadist groups wanting to kill off all Christians of the earth. It certainly takes time and paying attention to detail. I am overwhelmed with all that I have found rapidly online with the information to at least start my research on this subject.

I come from a background in psychology and so this “temperament” of vicious killing interests me in hopes of finding ways to stop it and to educate society. Forgive my ramblings as I acknowledge what I have found so far which only scratches the tip of the iceberg in my quest. I will never stop learning, so here goes.

In the first book of the bible we find that Hagar was an Egyptian slave and maid to Sarah, Abraham’s wife. Sarah was unable to conceive and so asked that Abraham bear a child through Hagar who would become Sarah’s through the customs of the time. Hagar bore Abraham’s son who was named Ishmael. Later, Sarah was able to conceive and bore a son named Isaac.

The Lord told Sarah that she would bear a son who would, according to the Cambridge Bible, would be,

untameable, strong, free, roaming, suspicious, and untrustworthy animal, living wild in the desert, far from the haunts of men. Source

Many view the scripture of “wild man” (KJV) or “wild donkey of a man” (NIV) as this webpage describes:

He describes Ishmael and his progeny in him as resembling the wild ass. This animal is a fit symbol of the wild, free, untamable Bedouin of the desert. He is to live in contention, and yet to dwell independently, among all his brethren. Source

These people having been always free, and never in bondage, always lived as free booters upon others: Source

Isaac was Sarah’s son by Abraham, after Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.

Ishmael was the son of the flesh, not the child of promise by God. Isaac was the child of promise who received the birthright. However God blessed Ishmael with 12 sons and numerous descendants. Source

and,

Ishmael mocked Isaac the true child of promise. Ishmael was sent to the desert wilderness and set up camp in Paran. Ishamel’s 12 sons became the 12 nomadic tribes (Gen 25:13).

and,

Ishmael mocked the true Son of the Father, Isaac. Isaac was the father of both Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) .

He became a patriarch of the Jewish nation, fathering Jacob and Esau. Jacob’s 12 sons would go on to lead the 12 tribes of Israel.Source

Isaac can be viewed as the Jew who will not need to wander from place to place, but will be able to call one place home. That place is Israel, which makes him a role model for Zionists. But all Jews can appreciate that residing in one place allows one to establish roots and develop a sense of home that is not possible when one moves from place to place as is so common today. Source

It would seem that Isaac had a more stable life than Ishmael who grew up knowing that his half-brother, Isaac, was the favored and natural son of Abraham and Sarah’s. Ishmael had been born of Sarah’s maid Hagar who had initially been thrown out of Sarah’s house with anger toward Ishmael’s mocking her son Isaac. Source and Gen 21:9-13

One perspective of the effect this had on Ishmael growing up was that,

This feeling of being an unworthy outcast matured into a resentment so strong that it permeated Ishmael’s very soul and from that day to this the descendants of Ishmael have stood against the descendants of Isaac. His anger had given the devil a foothold that grew into a stronghold so powerful that it has lasted through all the generations since. All this happened because Abraham and Sarah grew impatient with God and tried to fulfill His promise on their own. Source

Ishmael came into being because he fulfilled the Lord’s possibly teaching that it is wrong to have two wives, which in this situation was Sarah’s idea because she wanted a child. Hagar was, as some believe, the daughter of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, who saw the Christians as slaves. Possibly this was a way that the Lord made an example of Hagar’s hard times, from what I know of the Lord. I wonder too if Sarah, who was known first as “Sarai” until God changed her name, was barren for so long because she was Abraham’s half-sister, and God felt it is wrong to marry a half-sibling?

Ishmael was born to Abraham’s and Sarah’s handmaiden Hagar (Genesis 16:3).

The question of what happened to Ishmael may be answered here which states that,

Most of Ishmael’s descendants founded the Arab nations,

and,

the men of Kedar are mentioned in close association with the men of Nebaioth. The founder of Islam, Mohammed, was to trace his own direct descent from Kedar.

and,

The Nabataeans’ final demise was brought about by Augustus Caesar, who cut off the trade routes of Arabia.

According to the Genesis account, he died at the age of 137 (Genesis 25:17). The Book of Genesis and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael to be the ancestor of the Ishmaelites and patriarch of Qaydār. Source

Biblical tradition holds that the Qedarites are named for Qedar, the second son of IshmaelSource

Thus God spared Ishmael as a result of His general promise, but the blessings pronounced on Ishmael are certainly inferior to the covenant blessings pronounced on Isaac (compare Genesis 17:21; 21:12-13). We see that Ishmael was blessed, because he was the son of Abraham, but he was not the one through whom God’s covenant blessings would be passed down. God kept His promise to make Ishmael a great nation of him (21:18), but that is the limit. Source

Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, traces the starting of his lineage back to Ishmael through his first born son, Nabaioth. Source

Since GOD Almighty promised that He was going to make the Arabs a “great nation”, since they are from Ishmael, then this means that the Noble Quran is indeed GOD Almighty’s Law to the Arabs, and to ALL Muslims as well that embraced Islam. The people of Ishmael are clearly the Arabs (through biological descent), and all Muslims through theological descent. No knowledgeable non-Muslim would dispute that. Source

Prophecies about Ishmael came true:

Ishmael grew up, married an Egyptian woman, and begat twelve sons who became princes over their respective tribes (Genesis 25:12ff) — exactly as prophesied (17:20). Source

I found an interesting commentary about who Mohammed was and what he has done here

Mohammed, claiming to be an Apostle and Prophet from God, was gradually able to take these semi-barbarous sons of the desert, whose lawlessness was exceeded only by their daring, and whip them into a fighting force fueled by religious zealotry.

and,

The “Prophet’s” system involved an aggressive “bloody-sword” ideology. No longer content to persuade by words, “the sword” became “the key of heaven and hell,” and whoever died in battle received pardon from all sin and entered into the joys of a sensual Paradise (see McClintock, 6.407).

Many argue that all Muslim’s do not have an agenda to subdue all people’s so that they either become Muslims if they aren’t already, pay the poll tax or be killed. They say that Islam is a “religion of peace”, that we have nothing to be worried about. Looking down through history however, I wonder about this. Even in the face of Muslim extremist activities in which people are senselessly and brutally murdered around the world, how would people be able to ignore the fact that these terrible atrocities are occurring? So they not see the pattern using the books of the trade that the Muslim’s use; the Koran and the Hadith?

So would one say that no social-political-cultural line exists from the day of Ishmael to today? Has no learning, customs and traits be passed down from the “wild man”?

This will not stop, the search for why there are so many warriors that refer to being Muslims who want to kill off the Christians of the world. What can explain such a hateful group of people that all call themselves Muslims? I hope to find out and read more about this special belief in particular, now that I am a Christian.